Fuel reduction and defensible space activities among private landowners

Jeff KlineChristine OlsenEric WhitePaige FischerAlan Ager

Landscape OutputsForest products, terrestrial

biodiversity, wildlife habitat, landscape amenities, fire area,

fire hazard, carbon

Other Change Processes

Vegetation succession, fire behavior, housing

expansion

External DriversForest policies, markets

External DriversClimate change, population growth

ActorsUS Forest Service,

Bureau of Land Management,

State of Oregon

Corporate forest owners

Tribes

Non-industrial

forest owners

Homeowners

DecisionMaking

Volume/area targets

with constraints

and preferences

Landowner preferences and values

Conservation

Fire Protection

Home-owner

Forest Products

Social Networks

Government

ActionsCut trees,Reduce surface fuels,

Firewise homes, Develop

land

LandscapeCondition

Conclusions

• Perceived wildfire risk and mitigation effort are sensitive to fuel conditions on the ground:

Trees per hectare

Probability of wildfire

Chance of damage to property or home

• Property owners with past wildfire experiences perceive greater risk and are more likely to take mitigation actions

Conclusions

• Information from local government agencies appears to have little influence on wildfire risk perception by homeowners

But information from fire awareness groups does appear to have an effect

• Information from both local government and fire awareness groups appears to have a positive

influence on homeowners’ risk mitigation efforts

Protective action

Perceived responsibility

Perceived wildfire risk

Capacity

Wildfire hazard

Values at risk

Social context

Past wildfire experience

Factors influencing mitigation behavior

Two surveys:

Nonindustrial private forest landowners instudy region.

Homeowners in wildland-urban interfaceareas in study region.

Approach

Non-industrial private forest landowners

• Parcel size of 2.5 acres or more

• At least 10% forested

• Ranches and LLC entities (non-timber) included

• 11,000 NIPF taxlots

Factor EffectTrees per hectare +Past wildfire within miles ++Insect infestation nearby ++Forest Service information +Structure on the property +++

Factors influencing fuel reductionamong NIPF owners

Homeowners

• Survey in WUI – Intermix– Interface

• Summer 2012 – before Pole Creek

• 531 responses

Perceived wildfire risk

Perceived chance

of wildfire

Perceived chance

of damage

Components of perceived wildfire risk among homeowners

=x

Chance of damage (%)Conditional Flame length ++

Trees per hectare +++

Wildfire within miles +++

Prescribed burn neighbor +

Advice: family/neighbor

Advice: local government

Advice: fire awareness +++

Chance of wildfire (%)Burn probability +

Wildfire within miles +++

Prescribed burn in miles ++

Advice: family/neighbor

Advice: local govt/FD

Advice: fire awareness

Property owner

College-educated +++

Components of perceived wildfire risk among homeowners

Predicting Firewise activity

Firewise activity Perceived wildfire risk +

Wildfire in neighborhood ++

Advice: family/neighbor

Advice: local government +++

Advice: fire awareness +++

Property owner ++

Tenure +

Age --

HOA rule +++

Policy implications

• Property owners seem to understand the wildfire risks they face in this fire-prone landscape

But some owners can use assistance with how to mitigate wildfire risk

• Uncertain what types of assistance or other incentives might be most effective for inducing greater mitigation effort

Information, cost-sharing, technical assistance

Activity %Mow, prescribe burn, thin 13%Mow, prescribe burn 1%Mow, thin 36%Prescribe burn, thin 9%Mow only 22%Thin only 19%

56% of NIPF owners reduce fuel

Keith

Olse

n

Bend